Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#4540
All leaders should be 'Military Leaders'
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 21,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1516
rating
25
debates
82.0%
won
Description
- I believe this would be a positive for society and freedom
- I believe this could make the world a more peaceful place
- I believe this would solve medical budget crisis'
- I believe this would reduce crime
- I believe this would improve the over all life quality of a nation
Round 1
Opening Argument;
It has long been established and is well understood that a Military’s key contribution to society is its ability to produce men and women of substance that when required are willing to risk life and limb for the preservation of a state and its peoples.
I am aware that this is an ideal and that in its real world current application this is defiantly not the case. But as a set of core societal principles I would like to explore the idea that a military commander at the helm of society free from the corruption of politics would realistically be able to achieve this ideal and more.
Within the structure of a military we find all manner of skills across a large variety of outputs. Highly valued skills include but are not limited to Engineering, Mechanical repair and operation, Flight, Naval operations, Aerospace, Strategic planning, leadership and man management, physical health and discipline to name but a few.
Military leaders tend to seek the highest applicable skill level from their subordinates, relentlessly in pursuit of the so called ‘best of the best’, believing this offers the best tactic advantage when faced with an adversary. Counties and nations are already set up in such a way as to promote adversarial competition even among allies. Surly it is the case military leaders are best suited to take on the role of a nation’s leader. To explore this concept we have to consider at least in the hypothetical what form a society structured on the tenants of a military would look like. Imagine a Military Commander at the helm of say the United States, operating the country as if it were a military. Let’s consider this on a macro scale covering the education system only for now.
- In this scenario access to education would not be a voluntary action it would be forced upon subjects until they reach the age of 18 where they would be provided 3rd tier non-military based education allowing for intellectual freedoms post training. Until this point education would be delivered within a military capacity and delivered as if it were a boot camp. With the aim of providing a citizen a base point of skill and health at the age of 18 when full freedoms are returned.
Citizens attending education would expect to first be trained physically ensuring a minimum level is achieved before advancement, this protocol would continue throughout the subject’s education ensuring an enhanced level of physically attributes are maintained and drilled in to the subject. While this seems harsh on the individual freedoms of the subjects, it in turn provides a substantially better base point for physical health than voluntary education systems currently provide. “When it comes to physical health the earlier the intervention the better the end result”.
It should also be noted that sport while not part of a military’s core training regimen is actively encouraged during recreational time on military bases currently. Gyms, basketball hoops, sports fields and more are provided by military’s to facilitate a competition based approach to physical health. Once a physical health standard is set, the burden of poor health is mostly lifted bar any genetically inherited illnesses or pre-existing physical/mental impairments.
Now we enter the skills selection stage;
Subjects wouldbe encouraged to choose a ‘Specialisation’ as a military operates for the purpose of war fighting, the skills it can impart tend to be geared toward war however these skills cover such a broad range that a degree of skills transfer can be attributed when engaging the skill set beyond its originally intended purpose. To highlight this we can take the example of a military engineer;
According to Indeed;
Military engineers typically create schematics, test prototypes and produce finalized designs for military technology and physical infrastructure. They can work within the chemical, mechanical and electrical engineering specialties, depending on their background. Military engineers can be responsible for various tasks depending on their specific role and military branch. Still, all military engineers serve a role in developing and maintaining resources for military operations. Some of the key tasks for military engineers are:
- Researching scientific concepts
- Designing camouflage
- Interpreting satellite images
- Drawing maps
- Creating terrain plans and excavating combatareas
- Building roads and pathways
- Testing military vehicles
- Inventing explosive devices
- Locating and eliminating land mines
- Developing military policies
- Designing electrical systems
- Repairing aircraft and watercraft
- Coordinating military vehicles
- Strategizing military operations
Looking at the diverse skill set of a military engineer it is quite easy to place these skills in environments other than military application for example if you can build roads and pathways for the military you can also build roads and pathways in a civilian capacity. If you can coordinate the logistics of military fleet of vehicles you can also coordinate civilian fleets such as buses, trains, trucks, post and more. The skills listed above if attained would set that subject up for life with interchangeable skills they can use to earn a much more prosperous living than the skills currently imparted by our civilian education systems by the time a person reaches 18yr old.
This is just one example of the application of one set of skills within a military framework, as mentioned the skills a military can provide is a relatively endless list, of survivability enhancing skills and conditioning.
Imagine if you will a military school open to the public without a requirement to enlist afterwards, a military school that spits out highly trained civilians with a variety of highly valuable skills. There would be no need to enlist as should a war occur the civilian population will have already been trained, leaving civilians not engaged in active war duty free to live prosperous, healthy and fulfilling lives with all the skills they require to achieve success and survive in most circumstances.
If military leadership in education alone has the potential to produce such high value inputs to society surly as an entire governance, a society conditioned by military leadership would benefit profusely from the guidance and logic of a military leader over that of a politician.
This is my opening argument I am happy to develop my points reactively as you present your counter arguments.
I look forward to your response.
1.Preamble
I as CON will prove that not all leaders should be military leaders. In other words, I must prove that there is at least one leader who does not deserve to or should not be a military leader.
Technically BOP is on me, but PRO must negate all of my claims.
2.Definitions
Leader - “a person who rules or guides or inspires others”
Military leader - “a leader of military forces”
3.Args
Not every leader is capable of being a military leader
A leader is defined (see above to be) “a person who rules or guides or inspires others”
In essence, the following people are qualified to be leaders
- Teachers
- Business Administrators
- Oldest sibling of a family
Clearly, none of these “leaders” should be a leader of military forces, due to them not having enough experience nor qualifications to lead a military. In essence, military leaders should be commanders capable of exercising command over an army with actual organization to reach a common goal [1]. In war, this would be defeating an enemy country(ies); in peace, this would be strengthening the state of technology.
Generally, someone should not be a military leader if:
- System of control pretends to control in very bad condition
- Person is incapable of duties[2]
Clearly, all the people listed above are incapable of the duties of commanding an army or any military branch to actual success
Every chain of command has these two properties:
- Issue orders downward
- Ask for clarification/resolve problems upward [3]
Provided that each has a goal in mind.
The oldest sibling of a family is technically a leader since he guides the younger siblings in the family.
However, the oldest sibling would be nowhere responsible enough to issue reasonable orders nor resolve problems on their own, especially if they are of young age (<13).
Having established that case, I’ll move onto a real-world example of where someone is incapable of guiding a military, although they may be a leader:
North Korea (NK)
This country is basically bare-bones. 26% of its GDP (the highest of 170 countries reviewed) was spent on defense in 2019 [4].
Let’s see what they spent it on in the past.
- 1993 - NK wants to withdraw from NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
- 2002 - NK exits NPT
- 2006 - NK starts nuclear testing
- 2008 - Despite backlash from literally all other countries, NK starts declaring nuclear sites
- 2010 - NK reveals uranium plant
- 2013 - NK advances Nuclear Program despite countries asking for “strategic peace”
- 2022 - Despite numerous agreements, talks with US presidents, and negotiations, NK ramps up missile tests. [5]
It seems like NK would ideally have state-of-the-art technology. Yet:
- NK suffered famine from 1993-2008 (~600k-1m deaths) [6]
- NK people are shorter than South Korea (SK) counterparts by 5 inches due to famine and starvation [7]
- “I was so hungry I ate rice out of vomit” — NK residents have barely any food to feed themselves [8]
- NK salary is barely $1-3 [9]
- NK GDP per capita is only $1.3k [10]
As a militarist state, NK’s leader (yes, he rules a country therefore he is a leader) can be described as a military leader (he controls all military affairs). Yet, he should not be a military leader as his excessive budget spending lacks the well-being of his own citizens, a key point emphasized by any other leader of a country.
Back to you, PRO.
10 sources linked wherever needed.
Round 2
For the purpose of simplicity I have kept your structuring present in the body of my text, with Cons statements in italics and my responses in bold.
if this is not suitable or adds a degree of confusion I will revise in the next section.
1.Preamble
I as CON will prove that not all leaders should be military leaders. In other words, I must prove that there is at least one leader who does not deserve to or should not be a military leader.
Technically BOP is on me, but PRO must negate all of my claims.
- Response to preamble; "in other words" is an attempt to place words of Cons choosing as the setup to the arguments parameters outside of the initial statements made in the arguments description. I refute the idea that Con only must prove that there is at least one leader who does not deserve to or should not be a military leader in order to win the argument for the below reasoning:
Cons statement: I must prove that there is at least one leader who does not deserve to or should not be a military leader.
Logical fallacy existent with in the statement: The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
in arguing from the perspective of one leader being indicative of all leaders Con would be engaged in a logical fallacy.
Acceptable correction of this statement: Con must prove that there is sound reasoning and or evidence to suggest that not all leaders should not be military leaders.
this leaves Cons positioning open to debate rather than trapped or fixated on on specific leader or example. More room to maneuver if you will.
2.Definitions
Leader - “a person who rules or guides or inspires others”
Military leader - “a leader of military forces”
- Agreed
3.Args
Not every leader is capable of being a military leader
A leader is defined (see above to be) “a person who rules or guides or inspires others”
In essence, the following people are qualified to be leaders
- Teachers
- Business Administrators
- Oldest sibling of a family
Clearly, none of these “leaders” should be a leader of military forces, due to them not having enough experience nor qualifications to lead a military. In essence, military leaders should be commanders capable of exercising command over an army with actual organization to reach a common goal [1]. In war, this would be defeating an enemy country(ies); in peace, this would be strengthening the state of technology.
- I refute this argument with the reasoning that the military highly values the skills of all 3 examples given. Teachers, Business Administrators and older people are all currently active in the make up of modern military's. Among the military's finest leaders you will find teachers along with schools and class rooms. West point being the example. you will also find business administrators in prominent leadership positions, purchasing weaponry, creating protocol, managing finance, accounts and supply's. Elders are also highly respected leaders within the military with General John William "Jack" Vessey Jr having served until the age of 63.
Generally, someone should not be a military leader if:
- System of control pretends to control in very bad condition
- Person is incapable of duties[2]
"System of control pretends to control in very bad condition" I don't understand this point?
No Person is incapable of duties, if any organisation is best placed to eliminate disability it is the military. It is well known and established that the public purse restricts the mobility of the disabled rather than the individuals physical condition. A number of active service personnel continue to serve post disablement with the assistance of technology created by the military itself.
Clearly, all the people listed above are incapable of the duties of commanding an army or any military branch to actual success
- This is not clear as refuted above
Every chain of command has these two properties:
- Issue orders downward
- Ask for clarification/resolve problems upward [3]
Provided that each has a goal in mind.
The oldest sibling of a family is technically a leader since he guides the younger siblings in the family.
However, the oldest sibling would be nowhere responsible enough to issue reasonable orders nor resolve problems on their own, especially if they are of young age (<13).
I refute this statement along the following lines of reasoning: no Military requires its entrants to have any degree of skill beyond very basic reading and writing. a military will task itself with training individuals to the desired skill level. this action presents military leaders as best placed to provide an environment of problem solving rather than problem acceptance. As mention in above rebuttals age is of no concern to a military, positions are heald within a military from very young scouts to very old generals, leadership quality's can be attained using the military training method as young as the youngest scout or as old as the highest ranked generals experience allows
Having established that case, I’ll move onto a real-world example of where someone is incapable of guiding a military, although they may be a leader:
- I would not say anything has been established just yet
North Korea (NK)
This country is basically bare-bones. 26% of its GDP (the highest of 170 countries reviewed) was spent on defense in 2019 [4].
Let’s see what they spent it on in the past.
- 1993 - NK wants to withdraw from NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
- 2002 - NK exits NPT
- 2006 - NK starts nuclear testing
- 2008 - Despite backlash from literally all other countries, NK starts declaring nuclear sites
- 2010 - NK reveals uranium plant
- 2013 - NK advances Nuclear Program despite countries asking for “strategic peace”
- 2022 - Despite numerous agreements, talks with US presidents, and negotiations, NK ramps up missile tests. [5]
It seems like NK would ideally have state-of-the-art technology. Yet:
- NK suffered famine from 1993-2008 (~600k-1m deaths) [6]
- NK people are shorter than South Korea (SK) counterparts by 5 inches due to famine and starvation [7]
- “I was so hungry I ate rice out of vomit” — NK residents have barely any food to feed themselves [8]
- NK salary is barely $1-3 [9]
- NK GDP per capita is only $1.3k [10]
As a militarist state, NK’s leader (yes, he rules a country therefore he is a leader) can be described as a military leader (he controls all military affairs). Yet, he should not be a military leader as his excessive budget spending lacks the well-being of his own citizens, a key point emphasized by any other leader of a country.
Addressing North Korea; North Koreas leader Kim Jun Un is not a military leader, he has not underwent any form of military training to qualify or merit him as a military leader, he is not in the desired shape or of the desired competence required by the military to be selected for leadership.
A state displaying militaristic leadership style without a military leader at its helm is not a military leadership. Military's are lead by merited generals, the are not lead by states, states may use a military but state leaders do not actively lead a military on a day to day basis. The North Korea point is mute to further substantiate this I will state;
My argument is that all leaders should be military leaders, not that all states should be militaristic states. the idea of my argument is that Military leaders are trained to have correct mindset and discipline in order to achieve success. I believe the tenants and pillars of discipline a military leader bestows upon their recruits are more aligned to societal desires of prosperity and peace than that of say financial leaders currently on wall street, who I'm sure Con will agree are current 'Leadership' of the shit show we wake up to every day now.
Balls back with you Con
Thanks for the R2.
- I refute this argument with the reasoning that the military highly values the skills of all 3 examples given. Teachers, Business Administrators and older people are all currently active in the make up of modern military's. Among the military's finest leaders you will find teachers along with schools and class rooms. West point being the example. you will also find business administrators in prominent leadership positions, purchasing weaponry, creating protocol, managing finance, accounts and supply's. Elders are also highly respected leaders within the military with General John William "Jack" Vessey Jr having served until the age of 63.
While yes, not every teacher/business administrator has the experience (with their current status) in the military and may not be able to immediately command a branch of military.
There’s a difference between a “perfect classroom” (military-like discipline) and a comfortable space for learning—both definitely do not coincide. A teacher/business administrator is to assume the later rather than the former.
Military is entirely an authority. Classrooms are more autonomy than authority with little “giving directions” and more advising the students to develop themselves. [11].
In fact, teachers themselves are sometimes struggling to keep a classroom in order [12].
Leader - “a person who rules or guides or inspires others”Military leader - “a leader of military forces”
Of course, while a teacher inspires his/her students, a military leader must have the sense of authority to lead a military forces. GIven that there is already struggle to keep a classroom in order, that struggle will only increase with an actual military in war times.
Acceptable correction of this statement: Con must prove that there is sound reasoning and or evidence to suggest that not all leaders should not be military leaders.this leaves Cons positioning open to debate rather than trapped or fixated on on specific leader or example. More room to maneuver if you will.
Note the following
- The fallacy of composition only states that “If it is true for one in the group, it is true for all in the group” [13]
However:
- My BOP says I must prove that at least 1 leader SHOULD NOT be a military leader (false for one person).
This makes complete sense
- All = everyone
- 1 person false = everyone not true
As long as I prove that at least 1 person should not be a military leader, all leaders should not be a military leader as there is at least 1 person that shouldn’t.
Con must prove that there is sound reasoning and or evidence to suggest that not all leaders should not be military leaders.
… which is providing a counterexample. See above.
"System of control pretends to control in very bad condition" I don't understand this point
I think it is best to explain with a very simple example.
Let’s take Vladmir Putin and Russia. Currently, Russia is the main instigator of the Russo-Ukraine war. However, Putin is almost the only force behind pursuing this war.
The current state of the Russian military involved in the war is as follows:
- Russia started war
- Many Russian soldiers have mental health problems (homesickness, depression) [14]
- Speaking up against the war is illegal in Russia and for Russian soldiers [15]
- Russian soldiers have basically nothing to fight with. They are purely fighting tanks with just machine guns [16]
From this, the following are conclusive:
- Many Russians soldiers don’t want to fight, but they have to anyways
- They have limited supplies and may be at a military disadvantage due to this.
And yet Putin wants to keep the war going. As explained previously, it is the duty of a leader to look after his/her people. Putin is only concerned about the military but fails to look after the well-being of his own Russian people.
Putin is a military leader as he commands the Russian military. However, he shouldn’t because he neglects his own people
I refute this statement along the following lines of reasoning: no Military requires its entrants to have any degree of skill beyond very basic reading and writing. a military will task itself with training individuals to the desired skill level. this action presents military leaders as best placed to provide an environment of problem solving rather than problem acceptance. As mention in above rebuttals age is of no concern to a military, positions are heald within a military from very young scouts to very old generals, leadership quality's can be attained using the military training method as young as the youngest scout or as old as the highest ranked generals experience allows
Pro argues that any person can become a military leader with the right amount of training. However, an existing leader (such as an older sibling younger than 13) would be in no way capable of commanding a military. Pro argues that leaders can train and become a military leader. Yet:
- Training takes time
- Not everyone wants to join and train in the military
- An existing leader may not even be responsible enough at their current state to become a military leader
Also:
- The current US military leader is the President of the United States [17]
- While training in the military to gain responsibility to become the President is an option, not everyone does that (example: Donald Trump was an actor)
- <13 year old older sibling can’t even qualify to be the president [18]
- Therefore: <13 year old older sibling can’t be a military leader
Addressing North Korea; North Koreas leader Kim Jun Un is not a military leader, he has not underwent any form of military training to qualify or merit him as a military leader, he is not in the desired shape or of the desired competence required by the military to be selected for leadership.
Let’s look back at that definition again.
Leader - “a person who rules or guides or inspires others”Military leader - “a leader of military forces”
- Kim Jong Un leads NK’s military forces
Therefore, Kim Jong Un is a military leader.
he has not underwent any form of military training to qualify or merit him as a military leader, he is not in the desired shape or of the desired competence required by the military to be selected for leadership.
Of course, these are points that I can rebound at pro.
Military leaders are trained to have correct mindset and discipline in order to achieve success.
Not all have the “correct mindset”; in fact, one of my core arguments is discussing why not all military leaders have the correct mindset to be a military leader.
I look forward to your R3.
Round 3
Forfeited
Extend all args
Round 4
Forfeited
Ext3nd
Round 5
Forfeited
In conclusion I shall extend all args and thank pro for his round 1 arg. Voters, please vote me (con)